Sure, there were certain things the prophets received directly from the mouth of God that became Scripture…
But there are many other parts of the Bible that didn’t come about that way.
Certain parts of Scripture were compiled from various sources by multiple authors.
And the books of Samuel and Kings are a perfect case in point.
What’s that?
“Then why are the books of Samuel called Samuel” you ask?
It’s because they’re named after the main character, NOT the author.
It should be obvious that Samuel himself could not have authored the books after his name because he died before David ruled a united Israel…
Yet, in spite of this, the books of Samuel provides a ton of info about David AFTER he was officially crowned the king of Israel…
Which means this portion of Scripture had to be compiled, written and edited by someone else.
Take a look at these verses that close chapter 29 of 1 Chronicles.
“The activities of David the king, from first to last, are written in the records of Sh’mu’el the seer, Natan the prophet and Gad the seer, with all his reign and his power, and the events that he, Israel and the kingdoms of other countries experienced.”-1 Chronicles 29:29-30
Well, there’s our answer folks.
This means a good portion of David’s life recorded in the books of Samuel originally comes from these documents that have been lost with the sands of time.
Let me rephrase what I just said so you really get what I’m saying here.
A bunch of anonymous editors acting more like researchers and journalists than authors dug into a bunch of historical documents from the past known as “Samuel the Seer”, “Nathan the Prophet”, and “Gad the Seer” and put together what we know today as 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel and the books of the Kings.
Are you shocked?
Well, you shouldn’t be because that’s pretty much how the New Testament was put together as well.
That’s right homies.
The gospel authors were NOT eyewitnesses to all of the events they recorded in what became the New Testament.
They were more like detectives than anything.
They dug deep into historical records.
They interviewed those who personally had interacted with Yeshua.
And then after gathering all the pieces together compiled what we call today the New Testament.
Now I know some people are gonna lose their minds when I say this but simple truth is the only authorized document that was considered Holy Scripture by the early Messianic church (the first “Christians”) continued to be Hebrew Bible or what folks today call the “Old” Testament.
The four gospels and the several letters of Paul were considered important but they were NEVER considered to be new Holy Scripture that should somehow be tacked onto the “Old” Testament to create some new “Christian Bible”.
The Scriptures have always been and will always be ONLY THE HEBREW BIBLE!
One effective way to understand this is to look at the Tabernacle and its varying degrees of holiness.
FIRST, you have the Holy of Holies.
This would be equivalent to the Torah portion of our Bibles.
SECOND, you have the Holy Place.
This would be equivalent to the rest of the Hebrew Bible.
FINALLY, you have the outer courtyard.
I would say this space would be equivalent to the New Testament.
Definitely important but is it on the same level as the Hebrew Bible?
Absolutely NOT!
CONNECTING THIS TEACHING TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
“So too Yeshua suffered death
outside the gate,
in order to make the people
holy through his own blood.
Therefore, let us go out to him
who is outside the camp
and share his disgrace.”
-Hebrews 13:12-13
I appreciate what you have written here. This is me keeping an open mind and learning: ٩(^‿^)۶
I like your analogy of the Bible books to the Tabernacle. If I remember correctly, the outermost court of the temple was called the Court of the Gentiles, which matches perfectly with your analogy.
I agree 1000% with your statement about which parts of the Bible are scripture and which are not- it has to be obvious to anyone with the ability to think for themself that there are parts which are God-dictated, God-inspired, human narrative of historical events, and the rest is stuff someone decided to put in there (like Song of Songs: a nearly pornographic story of two lovers…really? Scripture? Oh, c’mon!)
If I could rewrite the New Covenant I would keep the first three Gospels (John’s Gospel is so much double-talk), Acts, Hebrews, and Revelation. They are the most valuable books there- the Epistles from Paul are (as I have said many times) just managerial directives to some of the congregations he formed that were having spiritual or interpersonal relationship issues, and he was trying to keep them on track to learn how to worship God as the Torah says, but at a slow pace.
Thank you, Rich, for being brave enough to write what most Christians would call blasphamy because they only know what they have been told and don’t want to challenge it.
Challenging the truth is good for two reasons: one is that if it is wrong, then you are that much closer to being truly saved, and the second is that truth will stand up to anything, so a challenge will only help to strengthen ones faith.
You should probably read 2 Peter 3:16 – Peter put Paul’s letters in the same classification as scripture –
“…in all his (Paul’s) letters…as they do OTHER scriptures” (CJB) — I think its safe to say Peter knew what he was talking about.
Dr. Terry M. Hayes D.PC
Terry,
2 Peter 3:16 would be much more compelling if it was actually written by Peter.
Don’t think I don’t appreciate 2 Peter – Someone wonderful wrote it, and I am glad he or she did. But it is almost certainly not correct to say “Peter considered the letters of Paul to be Scripture”.
Because 2 Peter was accepted by the Fathers as canon-worthy, we know that *they did* consider the letters of Paul to be Scripture. Anything much beyond that, is either speculation or a personal choice to agree with the Fathers (or not).
I suggest we let the Bible interpret itself
Quote: “I suggest we let the Bible interpret itself”
I don’t disagree. My specific point in the previous comment is the statement “Peter says Paul is Scripture” is shaky ground.
——
Now, on to the statement “2 Peter is in the Bible, and *IT* says Paul is Scripture”
Martin Luther and many other TRUE believers over the last 1,900 years felt safe and confident giving different weights to different parts of the Bible.
“Luther was able to call James an ‘epistle of straw’ and retain its canonicity because he held to a two-level view of the New Testament: James was excluded from the top tier and consigned to the lower tier of New Testament books.” **
We can have a healthy argument about what weight to give a book, or a text, or whether a weighted system is even internally consistent with the Bible’s teachings.
In fact, that is what this post and comments are all about!
But that healthy argument does not requiring tossing anyone overboard the ship of salvation, or impugning their motives.
By about 200 AD, the core of the NT was generally accepted. But it was nearly 200 more years (!) before 2 Peter (and other books) first show up on an accepted list.
For the eastern church it was 508 BC (!) before they listed 2 Peter as part of the Bible. A long and healthy debate. Which continues to this day.
The point of the post stands:
The NT is not inspired in the same way the Torah was inspired (mostly word-for-word – from the mouth of God).
And the Psalms are not inspired in the same way the Torah was.
Yet Torah, and Psalms, and the NT are all in the Bible, and that’s fine.
Let the Bible interpret the Bible: Torah gets more weight
** https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-epistle-of-straw-reflections-on-luther-and-the-epistle-of-james/
So you’re throwing out the first rule of interpreting the Bible…letting the Bible interpret itself…all I can say is wow!
Dr. Terry Hayes D.PC
Kind of a moot point Terry. The words of Scripture always have to pass through our subjective filters whenever we read the Bible. No two people view any verse in Scripture in exactly the same way. Shalom.
I couldn’t have said it better myself Eric. Great comment! Shalom.
Do you post replies that don’t agree with you ?
You don’t appear to
Been busy. Honestly, I think I’ve already addressed your point in the article I wrote. I think you’re making a huge and MISTAKEN assumption on 2 Peter 3:16. Even Paul himself never considered his writings to be on the same level as Holy Scripture (Aka the Torah and the Prophets). Are you kidding me man?
Wow…you are doing the very thing you are so adamant opposed to…putting your own spin on the Word
Terry,
Quote: “So you’re throwing out the first rule of interpreting the Bible…letting the Bible interpret itself…!”
No, sorry to be confusing
My post was too wordy. Bottom line, I *do* agree the Bible should interpret itself.
Which is why Torah (straight out of the mouth of the Lord) should get more weight than other inspired writings (like Psalms, Romans, or 2 Peter).
Realize that weighing Scriptures differently did not start with Martin Luther. Traditionally, Jews (like Jesus) did this too.
For example, the Sadducees were very strict about “if it ain’t in the Torah, it ain’t true”. Which is WHY they said there is no resurrection . . .because it isn’t mentioned in Torah.
Or is it?!
Jesus, in Matthew 22, pointed to where in Torah they could find mention of eternal life.
Personally, the Torah and the words of Jesus are the foundation, and everything else in the Bible has to be interpreted in light of that.
This is so helpful when interpreting some of Paul’s seeming-confusing arguments. Anyway, not to drone on. Be well!